I met Jake and Chris, the founders of Red Rampant, because I wanted to work on a historically grounded game that treated players and the subject matter seriously.

Although I wanted the experience to be engaging and enjoyable, I also wanted it to respect real history and avoid turning learning into a simplistic exercise.

Jake, Chris and I shared similar instincts about how games, learning and storytelling should work.

Working with Red Rampant has been a genuine creative partnership, and I learn as much from them as they learn from me.

When universities think about student training on difficult topics such as consent, harassment and respectful behaviour, the default format is still usually e-learning.

That makes sense. How else can a university manage the sheer logistics of training so many students and proving to an external body that the training was completed? That’s why I am so proud of our work at Marshalls and then Ciphr.

But not every university has budget for videos and interactive media. Some go for DIY version which becomes a linear experience of click and read.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how we can be innovative with engaging students on core topics. It seems to me that increasingly they will use AI tools as their main search engine, they like processing information in a very specific question and answer format.

As it stands a student can complete a module without really wrestling with the question. I then worry, is this becoming an exercise in compliance rather than cultural change? They can click through the content, answer enough questions to pass, and move on. Or worse, and often more likely if the e-learning is ‘homemade’ – never engage at all.

I developed Student Compass to initially support student pastoral care. I wonder if it could be used as a training device?

What if some forms of student guidance worked better not only as fixed content, but as structured question and answer?

I do not mean handing sensitive issues over to an improvising chatbot. I mean something more careful than that: a tightly controlled conversational layer built around approved university content, clear boundaries and proper signposting.

That could be particularly relevant where students may have the real question in their head, and let’s face it the limitation of e-learning is…. you can’t ask questions…

Topics around E6 and consent are an obvious place to start thinking about this. The logistics of reaching all students is exceptionally challenging. I know as I’ve been working hard at helping universities with this over the past year. A conventional module can explain the policy, the definitions and the reporting routes. But a conversational format might help some students test their understanding more honestly. It is also discreet, and can be delivered in any language the student would prefer to learn in.

And if that idea has merit there, it may also have merit more broadly.

This is a subject I know well, and it offers a useful comparison because it shows the difference between standard e-learning and a more conversational approach very clearly.

In a standard e-learning course, the learner might be given a case study like this: Jamie is writing a person specification for a customer-facing role and wants to include the phrase “presentable, well-turned out and clean-shaven”. The learner is then asked whether there is a problem with this. The right answer is that it may amount to indirect discrimination, because a requirement to be clean-shaven could disadvantage members of some religious
groups unless the employer can justify it.

That is a perfectly good e-learning interaction. It introduces a legal concept, gives a practical example and checks whether the learner can identify the issue.

The underlying content is the same. The legal principle is the same. But the learning experience is different.

In the standard module, the learner is asked to spot the correct answer.

In the conversational version, the learner is allowed to think out loud, misunderstand the point, test the logic and arrive at a better grasp of what the idea means in practice.

That is what makes this interesting.

The case for conversational learning is not that it replaces e-learning. And it is certainly not that AI should be left to generate sensitive guidance on the fly. The case is that some topics may benefit from a format that allows the learner to ask the next natural question.

That may be particularly relevant in student contexts, where universities are not just trying to push out information, but to help students understand, reflect and act responsibly.

So perhaps the future is not e-learning or AI.

Perhaps it is e-learning plus conversation.

A standard module can still provide the approved structure, the legal clarity and the institutional baseline. A conversational layer could then help students engage more actively with the same approved material, especially in areas where embarrassment, uncertainty or social pressure often get in the way of learning.

That is why I think this question is worth exploring.

If universities are serious about student understanding in areas such as E6 and consent, it may not be enough simply to show students the content. This is one of the questions I’m exploring through Student Compass and in my wider work this year.

This was my first visit to an AMOSSHE conference, although we have supported the organisation for several years through Marshall E-Learning and more recently Ciphr. Much of our work has been with student services teams, particularly around e-learning courses on consent, bystander awareness, introduction to E6 and identifying student mental health issues. So it felt important to show our support for the sector.

I am also at a slightly different stage in my own career, stepping back to two days a week with Ciphr and exploring new directions. Attending in person was new for me. I did feel a degree of imposter syndrome surrounded by so many experts, but I was looking for inspiration.

I will admit I have never been particularly strong at networking events. The conference drinks the evening before were no exception. Having gone alcohol-free in 2026, the dynamic felt different. I spoke to a few people, then headed out into Manchester and found a non-alcoholic bar called Hinterland, where I had an excellent alcohol-free negroni.

I have always enjoyed Manchester. I used to work there regularly, I love the energy of the city, and it was great to be back.

The conference itself covered a wide range of perspectives.

Mirela Mazalu, Secretary-General of the European University College Association, opened with a positive update on the return of Erasmus-style opportunities. It was striking how emotional this felt in the room. The ability for UK students to study abroad again clearly matters deeply to many in the sector.

One of the standout talks came from Professor Duncan Ivison, Vice Chancellor at the University of Manchester. His keynote focused on moving student support from a “bolt-on” to something built into the academic experience.

He spoke about students often experiencing university as a kind of maze, particularly those without family experience of higher education. That observation stayed with me. Universities are rich in support, but that support is not always easy to navigate, especially for those who do not already understand the system.

There was also a clear implication: student support cannot sit at the edges of the institution. It needs to be integrated into the academic journey. In practice, that places a significant responsibility on roles such as personal tutors.

Dr Sarah Sweeney, Chair of AMOSSHE and Head of Student Support and Wellbeing at Lancaster University, spoke about transition and leadership within the organisation, welcoming incoming chair Dr Aleata Alstad-Calkins. Having worked with Sarah on e-learning projects, I know how effective she is, and I wish her well in her new role.

One of the most thought-provoking sessions I attended was led by Kristy Robinson from the University of Westminster.

Her focus was on how student expectations are changing. Where once a university could offer free pizza and students would turn up, now to get in-person participation students increasingly ask, quite directly, “what’s in it for me?”

This creates a tension. Students expect support to be:

At the same time, universities are working within:

Kristy introduced a simple but effective way of evaluating services through this lens, encouraging teams to consider clarity, relevance, effort required, and perceived value. It was a practical session, and one that sparked genuine discussion.

Other sessions showed how institutions are responding in different ways.

Ulster University presented a simple but effective initiative using QR codes to link students directly to study skills resources and support services. It was a good example of making access easier without overcomplicating things.

Roehampton took a very different approach, using data to track engagement and identify early signs of disengagement, such as missed classes. This allows for targeted interventions, although it raises questions about how far universities should go in monitoring behaviour.

Sheffield Hallam shared their experience of implementing an AI chatbot. It appeared to be effective in handling a high volume of enquiries and relieving pressure on staff. The next challenge, interestingly, seemed to be managing expectations of what the system could and could not do.

We also heard from Rajk College in Budapest, which offered a completely different model based on student leadership and shared governance. While very different from the UK system, it was refreshing and clearly resonated with many delegates.

My main takeaway is the strength of the AMOSSHE community. There is a clear sense of professionalism, care, and shared purpose among those working in student services.

At the same time, there is pressure.

Student expectations are increasing. Response times are under scrutiny. Students will complain if they do not hear back quickly, and in some cases may disengage or withdraw without ever contacting support services.

What struck me most is that universities are not lacking support. The challenge is increasingly about connection.

How do students find the right service?
How do they know who to speak to?
How do they feel confident enough to ask?

A chatbot is clearly helpful, particularly in managing volume. But it does raise a further question: what happens when a student does not know what to ask in the first place?

There also seems to be a generational challenge. Many of the people designing services did not grow up in a digital-first environment, yet they are supporting students who expect instant, intuitive access to information and help.

AMOSSHE clearly do a fantastic job for their members, and I left the conference with the inspiration I was hoping for.

It also left me with a question.

What might help institutions go beyond simply providing information, or adding another layer of technology, and instead make it easier for students to find their way to the right support at the right time?

It just happened again. A long-time client said, “David, I like the beard, what’s the story there?” I said I’ll shave when Tottenham win again.

Cue gentle ribbing from the Leeds and Liverpool supporters on the call about the Championship. “You will end up looking like Father Christmas.” Fair enough. I can take it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The fixtures are there for everyone to see. We’ve been dreadful. And while friends are urgently trying to talk to me about the Straits of Hormuz, I’ve got Wolverhampton away, Villa away, Leeds home, Chelsea away and Everton at home running round my head at all times.

Loyalty matters to me. Probably more than anything else. So if the worst happens, I’ve already decided I’m going to lean into the experience. It will be character building. I’ll watch Spurs all over the country again. Derby, Rotherham, Preston, Lincoln. I’ll go.

But I suppose what I’m really thinking about is resilience. Football is only football. People are dealing with much bigger things. I know that myself, and I’ve spent years designing digital learning on mental health and resilience.

One thing I’ve learned is that people often carry a lot without showing it. That’s one reason I still believe in e -learning for difficult topics. It gives people some privacy. Not everyone wants to put their hand up in public. Sometimes they need space to reflect first.

And sometimes, if someone is under real pressure, they may not have the focus for an hour of linear e-learning. They may be more likely to use something more immediate and conversational: an AI support tool that helps them ask a question, find the right support, or take a first step.

Anyway, maybe Spurs stay up, maybe they don’t. But the whole thing has reminded me that resilience is not really about pretending everything is fine. It is about noticing when something is affecting you, and knowing how to respond. Not everyone knows how to do that. I really hope some of my e-learning courses have helped people, and in 2026 we have more opportunities to be innovative than ever before.

I’ve never known the higher education sector to be under so much financial pressure, and it saddens me when I talk to customers who feel the burden of increased pressure and more job insecurity.

It doesn’t help when corporate consultancies create value packs that demonstrate how an AI model for student support could save the university even more money.

My interactions with Gen Z have shown me that they are the most wary of anything to do with AI, and any support offered to them via AI would be seen as fake and cheap.

What they would appreciate is using AI to direct them quickly and efficiently to the real experts and services the university provides. If you do this well, you get increased student engagement, better reviews, less dropout, and a flourishing environment for staff and students.Surely this has to be the model going forward, not increased cost-cutting.

You can create your own AI support tool, directing students to you and your expert colleagues. Create your own AI. Don’t have it ‘done to you’ by consultants.

Get in touch and I’ll tell you more about how we are doing this right now.

Jay Vergara and I first connected when he was at Rakuten. We had some very early morning calls together, 7am, if memory serves, and I always enjoyed them. He is one of those people who is thoughtful, easy to talk to, and full of ideas.

We later got the chance to meet properly in Tokyo, which I was very glad about. Jay also sent me to Don Quijote for a shopping mission that turned out to be absolutely essential, as I needed presents for my nephews and nieces and had left this rather too late. For that alone, he deserves some sort of public recognition.

What I like about Jay is that, like me, he has come through diversity, inclusion and broader learning work, but is now thinking seriously about AI. That raises an interesting question. Are people like us simply following the market, or are we bringing something useful into a new space?

I thought it would be good to catch up with him for the site and ask where he thinks this next wave is really going.

You can find Jay’s work at Lead Human here: https://leadhuman.ai

The Interview

Jay, let’s start with the important issue: what was that breakfast we had in Tokyo? I remember it fondly, but I have not seen anything like it in Winchester.

The breakfast. Komeda Coffee's morning service. Order a coffee before 11 and the food comes free with it. Toast, egg, the works. An institution. Worth a flight back to Japan just for that.

Also, before we get into work, thank you again for sending me to Don Quijote. Have you any idea how many family birthdays you saved with that recommendation?

Don Quijote. Hah. So glad it landed. Did you find the dried shiitake mushrooms while you were in there? They've literally won awards. Source of fiber, miraculous for the diet, and also worth its own flight back. I'm pretty sure I've saved more family birthdays than I can count.

We first connected when you were at Rakuten, and I still remember those 7am meetings. When you look back, what were the big ideas we were circling around then?

The big ideas at Rakuten. The one that comes back to me is that you can't just transplant Western D&I content into a Japanese organization and expect it to work. We were circling around how to actually customize it for the context. Cookie cutter content was everywhere and most of it was useless in Tokyo.

You once called me the OG of diversity e-learning, which made me laugh. What made you say that, and how do you see that earlier generation of digital learning work now?

Why I called you the OG of diversity e-learning. Because at the time there was no one else I dealt with who had your capability and quality on the D&I side. Maybe even still now. I needed someone who would bring genuinely customized material into Rakuten and you understood that what works for DEIB in the West doesn't always work here. That's why I kept showing up at 7am.

Both of us came through diversity, inclusion and wider L&D work, and now we are both moving into AI. Do you see that as a natural evolution, or do you think some people in our world have simply smelt where the money is?

Natural evolution or smelt the money? Hitting me with the big questions. Some people are probably following the money but what I see is bigger than that. People are moving too slow on actually learning AI while society is sprinting on the doom and gloom side. The fundamental change is that if you don't learn to use AI, not the chatbot stuff but the real building, you'll get left behind in your career and in society. But if you neglect the human skills like leadership you'll get outperformed by AI anyway. Do both and you're invincible.

Put bluntly: when people from L&D move into AI, how do we know whether they are innovators or just passengers on the gravy train?

Innovators or passengers on the gravy train? You asked me to be blunt so I will be. I am tired of L&D "experts" giving opinions about AI who don't know the difference between an MCP connector and a markdown file. I'm tired of yappers who can quote Bloom's taxonomy and L1s and L2s but can't open Claude Code or Codex in a terminal or an IDE and design their own tools. We've been pushing 'human content slop' for years and the slow nature of our business has made us lax about change. AI agents have changed all of that. Pedagogy still matters but if you're not in there building tools at the cutting edge you're just faking it.

Here's a hot take I could talk for hours on: Instructional designers as we know them will go extinct. What survives is engaging human facilitation, because people will get sick of fast AI slop and crave real humans. The future L&D person is an incredible facilitator with domain knowledge who builds their own tools and consults with the business. Buckle up my friend, it's moving fast. I may have just made some enemies with this answer.

Your site is called Lead Human, which is a strong name because it pushes against the usual machine-led nonsense. What does leading humanly mean to you in practice?

What 'leading humanly' means in practice. I've had spirited debates about this with my business partner Matt Gates and at my MBA at GLOBIS in Tokyo. The answer I keep landing on is that leading humanly is the moat AI can't cross. AI is commoditizing every part of our business. Material that used to take weeks is being generated by agents in minutes. Once that's abundant, and it's around the corner, what humans will actually want is the skills part. Psychological safety. Reading the high context disconnect between cultures. Being a good manager. Handling conflict like a human. None of that gets commoditized. That's the moat.

You’re clearly interested in AI, but you also seem wary of hype. What are people getting wrong about AI in learning, leadership and people development at the moment?

What people are getting wrong about AI in learning right now. Most are pattern matching on what they think AI is rather than actually using it. They claim they understand it, try to incorporate it, but they don't have a firm grasp of how disruptive agentic work really is. Agentic AI isn't a chatbot you ask questions to. It's something you give a goal to and watch execute across your stack. That distinction is everything and most L&D leaders haven't even seen it work, let alone built with it.

What do practitioners from diversity and L&D bring to AI that more technical founders or developers often miss?

What D&I and L&D practitioners bring that technical founders miss. The human side. Engineers optimize for capability. We optimize for whether someone actually changes their behavior after the experience. We've spent careers watching beautifully designed programs fail because the human in the room wasn't ready, didn't trust the facilitator, or didn't see themselves in the material. That instinct is rare and most technical founders don't have it.

Are there areas where AI can genuinely improve inclusion, communication or leadership development, and are there areas where it should be kept firmly at arm’s length?

Where AI can help and where it should be kept at arm's length. AI literally can't cross certain lines. At its base it's regression analysis at scale. Even as it consumes more data now, video, audio, sentiment, it doesn't really understand what humans are or how someone reacts given the intangibles. D&I and L&D folks know this maybe better than developers do.

So yes to AI for content scaffolding, role play simulators, personalized pathways, sentiment analysis at scale. No to AI as the actual coach for hard conversations, psychological safety building, or anything where trust is the unit of value. Use AI to free up your humans, not to replace them.

You’ve worked across cultures and spent years in Tokyo. Has that shaped the way you think about communication, leadership and the risks of one-size-fits-all technology?

Tokyo and cross cultural risk. Living here for over a decade has done something I didn't expect. It made me deeply suspicious of any technology that assumes one default. AI today is built largely with Western defaults baked in. Direct communication, individual achievement, low context everything. Drop that into a Japanese organization without rethinking it and you'll watch it fail in a very polite, very Japanese way. The lesson Tokyo gave me is that defaults are everything and they're invisible until they break.

What are the most genuinely useful applications of AI you’re seeing right now, not the flashy demos, but things that organisations can really use?

Most useful applications of AI right now. I could tell you how I vibe coded my own LMS in Claude Code, yes, fully functional!!! Or how I've cut my video editing down to a laughable amount of time compared to before. Ask me about what repos I use and I'll chew your ear off. Or how MCP with Apify lets me get a true sentiment read on topics I couldn't access through Google before.

Honestly though the biggest one for me is simpler. Crossing academic journals using MCP, Consensus, to actually understand how concepts like psychological safety and manager communication connect to each other. That's the unsexy stuff I couldn't do at scale before.

If someone comes to your work for the first time, what do you most want them to understand about what you are building?

What I want people to understand about what I'm building. Honestly I want them to tell me. I don't know yet. I'm collecting some of my own findings and thoughts in this VUCA world about AI and how it's affecting us as humans, and putting it on leadhuman.ai and on YouTube. Some people seem to like it. In less than a month I'm at around 7000 YouTube subscribers. Please like and subscribe (lol).

And finally, where do you think this goes next for you? More consulting, more product thinking, more partnerships, or something else entirely?

Where it goes next. All of the above. With AI we can't even predict next year, let alone next month. I've got brands reaching out asking me to talk to their people about AI and human skills. A couple of months ago that would have made me laugh.

Wrap Up

Maybe I’ll get to Canada for the World Cup, or maybe Jay will make it over here first. Either way, I am quite sure we have more conversations ahead of us, and probably some good collaboration too.

Contact Jay:
You can find Jay Vergara at Lead Human:
leadhuman.ai
peakpotentialconsulting.com

I have just spent a week in Cairo. I first went there in 1993, on what turned into a slightly disastrous holiday. Long story. This time, with the opening of the Grand Egyptian Museum, I wanted to go back properly and connect with Egypt, its history and culture, and perhaps heal that 1993 memory.

The museum is beautiful, but daunting. When I arrived, I was told that if I looked at each exhibit for one minute, I would need seven days to see everything. I had a ticket with a two-hour slot.

There were corridors leading to different galleries, signs pointing in several directions. The museum shop looked good. This was why I had come. And then, oddly, my mind started to shut down. Should I get a guide? An audio guide? Should I start with the statues, the royal collections, the everyday objects, or the most crowded area, the Tutankhamun galleries?

For a while, I just walked around rather listlessly, admiring the beauty of the building and the artefacts, but not really knowing how to begin. It was a maze, and I think many students experience university in a similar way.

Not because universities do not care, or because support does not exist, but because large institutions can be hard to navigate when you are new, anxious, embarrassed or unsure what you are even asking for. Students may know support exists, but not know where to start. They may not have the right language for what they are experiencing. They may not know whether their problem is academic, personal, financial, practical or something else entirely. That is where this work begins.

One of the things that has stayed with me most from my work with universities is hearing directly from students. Over the years, students occasionally contacted us after completing one of our courses. Some wanted to comment on the training. Others wanted to ask where they could get help.

That always stayed with me. If they were coming through to us, something in the system had not been clear enough. I did not work at their university, but they seemed to appreciate someone replying. Some told me difficult stories about feeling unsupported, being confused about who was teaching them, cancelled lectures, complaints they did not know how to raise, or problems they did not know how to name.

Quite often, what came through was a sense of confusion. A student might know that help exists somewhere in the university, but not know which door to knock on. They might feel lonely, but not know whether that is a wellbeing issue. They might be worried about their course, but not know whether to speak to a tutor, a student
adviser or someone else entirely. They might have seen something troubling, but not know whether it is serious enough to report.

They may also be embarrassed. They may worry that they are making a fuss. They may think everyone else is coping better than they are. That is not a small issue. If a student cannot find the right route into support, the support may as well be much further away than it really is.

At the same time, universities have told us that students are becoming more isolated and anxious, while student services teams are under increasing pressure. That combination worries me. Students need more help finding the right support, while the people providing that support are often already stretched.

AI is now part of that picture. More students are turning to AI for reassurance and advice. I understand why. It is available at any hour. It allows someone to ask a question they might feel awkward asking another person. Sometimes that may help, but it also carries a risk. AI can create a synthetic relationship with technology that moves students further away from real people, rather than towards them.

I am not interested in AI that traps students in another screen. I am interested in AI that helps them find their way back to real support. That is why Student Compass was developed. The purpose is not to replace student services. It is to help students find them.

Student Compass allows students to ask questions in their own words and be guided towards the right people, services, policies and next steps within their university. A student should not need to know the official name of a department before they can ask for help. They should not need to understand the difference between academic support, wellbeing support, accommodation support, complaints, safeguarding or disclosure processes before they know where to start.

They should be able to say ordinary things, such as:

That is where a tool like Student Compass can help. It is not trying to act as a counsellor, replace professional judgement or provide generic advice from the internet. It helps by making the university’s own support system easier to enter.

AI should not be used as a cheap substitute for care, judgement or human contact. Used well, it can reduce confusion and guide people towards the support that already exists. That is the kind of AI I want to work on.

Most universities already have committed people, serious policies and a wide range of support services. The problem is not always absence. Sometimes it is visibility, confidence and navigation.

Too often, student services can feel like a pocket of the campus that students only discover when something has already gone wrong. Student Compass is designed to help bring that support into the mainstream of university life, so that students and staff know there is a clear first place to go for help, direction and next steps.

Students need a clearer first step. Staff need fewer avoidable enquiries going to the wrong place. Universities need tools that strengthen their human services rather than bypass them.

To the students who wrote to me over the years, I am sorry I could not always help more. Student Compass is, in part, my response.

Student Compass : bringing student support into the mainstream of university life.